Is the latest change in the Model 3 AWD range due to software or hardware?

[tg27]

This is normal, and has happened before, before Tesla fully completes the EPA testing and gets an official sticker (I think it says "I Am Proud Of You") from the EPA. It will be right in the ballpark. In the past it has even gone up a couple miles I think (Model Y), but I don't remember the exact history, and it'll be close, anyway.

For those interested in how EPA and Tesla calculate the range, this is a pretty good article on Tesla's EPA ratings:

The Adjustment Factor Tesla Uses to Get Its Big EPA Range Numbers

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

For those interested in how EPA and Tesla calculate the range, this is a pretty good article on Tesla's EPA ratings:

The Adjustment Factor Tesla Uses to Get Its Big EPA Range Numbers

Exactly. Cool to know that someone finally reported on this. This is an excellent explainer. I arrived at this conclusion myself about a year ago, by parsing through all the EPA datafiles.

The key passage:

"The default adjustment factor reduces the window-sticker range by 30 percent. So a car that achieves 300 miles of range during the city-cycle dynamometer test ends up with a 210-mile city rating. However, the EPA allows automakers the option to run three additional drive cycles and use those results to earn a more favorable adjustment factor. Currently, only Tesla and Audi employ this strategy for their EVs, and Tesla scores the most advantageous results, with adjustments that range from 29.5 percent on the Model 3 Standard Range Plus to 24.4 percent on the Model Y Performance."

Looks like Model 3 has likely gone to something close to just a 24% reduction, too. By running 5-cycle (2 cycles + 3 additional cycles), which with a heat pump gives them advantageous results. They have actually always run the 5 cycles for the Model 3 - it's just that it ended up with close to the standard 0.7 factor when they did.

(That's directly connected to the 0.7 (it's actually 0.7032) and 0.756 scalars mentioned above. 1-0.7032 = 29.7% and 1-0.756 = 24.4%)

 

[MP3Mike]

One interesting thing that @TimothyHW3 pointed out is that apparently the WLTP cycle doesn't use any heat. And that only added 20km to the range (580km now I guess rather than 560km)? I can't verify any of these facts other than it being 580km now.

Timothy's post

However, that could still be due to improvements due to the heat pump in terms of temperature management overall, and other slight efficiency improvements (it's only a 3.5% improvement).

Timothy thinks the battery capacity is larger, but I'm still leaning strongly towards simple efficiency improvements (due to design, heat pump, and possibly aeros). We shall see.

Seems like a lot of work to boost battery size when all these other (known to able to add tons of range) improvements are on the table - and they actually boost efficiency which is much more important than battery size.

I agree it is unlikely to be the result of a battery capacity increase. I'm pretty sure that the announcement Panasonic made was only that their new additional line in GigaNevada would have a 5% increase in cell capacity. Not that they were retrofitting all 13 lines. Not to mention that they didn't say it included 18650s in Japan. So there is no way Tesla could have increased the battery capacity on all models.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Not to mention that they didn't say it included 18650s in Japan.

Confused by this sentence; the Model 3 has 2170s.

 

[MP3Mike]

Confused by this sentence; the Model 3 has 2170s.

Just that Panasonic didn't say that their 5% cell capacity increase applied to the 18650s that they make for the S&X. (Since some people are claiming that is how the Model X is getting its range increase.) But verygreen has confirmed that the packs are still just 100kWh...

 

[Knightshade]

Tesla Gigafactory Nevada is getting another battery production line, Panasonic invests extra $100 million - Electrek

Panasonic is also upgrading the batteries being produced at Gigafactory, raising each battery’s storage capacity by 5%, starting in September.”

322 * 1.05= 338.

Guess the rest is wheels and heat pump

 

[TLLMRRJ]

Tesla Gigafactory Nevada is getting another battery production line, Panasonic invests extra $100 million - Electrek



322 * 1.05= 338.

Guess the rest is wheels and heat pump

And......

2020.40.7 Official Tesla Release Notes - Tesla Software Updates

 

[Watts_Up]

It doesn't look like software. It's probably the 5% improved battery that will be on the new models.
We will know for sure soon once someone gets delivery and connects scan my Tesla to measure the nominal pack.

I wonder if itinerary tools like A Better Route Planner will add the year of the car in car setting list
to compensate the various ranges for a same car?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Tesla Gigafactory Nevada is getting another battery production line, Panasonic invests extra $100 million - Electrek



322 * 1.05= 338.

Guess the rest is wheels and heat pump

Except:
Model 3 P 2020 - 332 EPA using 0.7032 scale

Model 3 AWD 2020 - 322 EPA using 0.7032 scale.

So if you make assumption of 5% more battery, means new scale would be:

353/338 * 0.7032 = 0.734

or (if the P actually has the 353 range and not the AWD - they sometimes list the best of each variant on the splash page):

353/(332*1.05)*0.7032 = 0.71

Both those scale factors are too low I think; Model Y got 0.75 with 5-cycle.

So with 5% more battery and heat pump efficiency I would expect about:

332*1.05*0.75/0.7032 = 372rmi

That’s from the P. It might get voluntarily reduced of course and go to 365 or something.

I suspect MAYBE these cars are capable of that range, if the cells truly have been switched over, but the extra capacity will be unlocked sometime next year (to anyone with a capable battery). My guess is the first salvo will be the efficiency improvements. I expect that to gain about 7% range just with the 5-cycle scale factor change.

We will see.

 

[TimothyHW3]

Just that Panasonic didn't say that their 5% cell capacity increase applied to the 18650s that they make for the S&X. (Since some people are claiming that is how the Model X is getting its range increase.) But verygreen has confirmed that the packs are still just 100kWh...

Model X actually did get more range on the website. As for 100kWh. That is and never was the gross capacity of the 100 models on S or X. It is closer to 96/97kWh gross with a 5kWh buffer that Tesla hides during driving below 0%. So maybe they squeezed in 3kWh more to make it true 100kWh

As for WLTP. I wrote it in the other thread. The WLPT doesn't use heating and the new 18" aeros if anything have bigger openings so that can't be it. More efficient motors? Could be, but remember when 2020 US Models got upgraded to 322 EPA? It never changed in Europa for 2019 nor 2020 models. So either they are catching up to that one, the 2020 EPA or there is indeed a little more capacity and they simply did the math again with the old consumption WLTP constant. IF the weight didn't change or was even lower, but they have more capacity, they can most certainly slap that onto the WLTP formula and get the 20km more without doing tests again.

This is basically like puting 5L bigger tank in an ICE cars and removing 5kg (the radio) of weight of the car so that even with 5L more you end up at the same weight before. This will result in WLTP just adding your 5L to the equasion and doing the range back from the new volume capacity.

 

[vsansal]

Looks like 2020.40.7 is adding 10 miles of range to existing model Ys. No word on model 3s. Perhaps it only improves if there is a heat pump.

From the release notes

“your car’s range has increased with new software that improves the efficiency of the motors and the climate control system.”

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

For the PREVIOUS 2020 Model 3, those values were:

176.5MPGe City, and 159.1MPGe Highway (again, unadjusted; these are raw cycle efficiency results).

Slight addendum to this. Astute readers will recall that for the Performance Model 3 2020 (18"), the 2-cycle efficiency numbers were even better.

182.7MPGe City, 170.2MPGe Highway. (unadjusted, before scale factor - scale factor was 0.7032 in 2020)

So that's the prior high water mark for efficiency. Maybe the efficiency difference between P and AWD will disappear in 2021 (reverting to the 2018 situation)? We'll see.

So keep an eye on that in the releases. The flow of data will be: CARB/EPA datafile will appear at the links provided (and the appearance of the vehicle around the same time on the fuel economy.gov site), followed a few weeks thereafter with the formal documents at the EPA download location, showing the exact capacity details (though the datafile provides all the top-line numbers needed to back-calculate battery capacity, actually, if you know how to work the numbers, and you assume same AC-DC efficiency).


I've evolved to thinking on this:

1) We'll get cars with ~353 rated miles very soon.

2) Later Tesla may unlock battery capacity (if they are populating the 2021 with the new cells with 5% capacity increase), and then we'll see about 370 rated mile range out of the Model 3. Maybe some time in 2021 for an extra stock price boost. Obviously they like to keep something in reserve to steal competitors' thunder. They've done it before.

The only question is whether all 2021 vehicles will be capable of it. Certainly 370 rated miles looks like no problem at all to achieve with 5% increase in energy plus the 5-cycle scalar increase due to the cold weather enhancements. (332*0.756/0.7*1.05 = 376.5). I'm using 332 here because that was the 2020 Model 3 Performance range before voluntary reduction.

I am assuming they'll end up with a similar scalar to what Model Y got, and that formula is complicated, but I don't see why they wouldn't with double pane windows, heat pump, etc. They might even get something higher than 0.756!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Just posting this to all these related threads. It does look like the range increase for AWD is in keeping with what I thought:

Mostly scalar improvements, some efficiency improvements, and no battery capacity increase, yet:

Preliminary EPA Data for Model 3 AWD & Model 3 P 2021 Released

 

[kailm]

21 M3 Increased range due to:

software efficiencies
Octovalve
Battery chemistry

Also weight is reduced, im suprised no one is mentioning weight. Although not enough for a boost alone to 353.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Also weight is reduced, im suprised no one is mentioning weight. Although not enough for a boost alone to 353.

I looked at that... It's not a significantly different weight AFAIK. (It's actually 34 pounds heavier curb weight for vehicles with more than 33% take, for 2021, vs. 2020...)

Note, this clearly states a battery energy density improvement. Which is interesting. Though their numbers in that department have never quite made sense. 150Wh/kg for 480kg battery is only 72kWh for 2020, and we know that was a ~79kWh battery.

2021:

2020: